Opinion About The House Bills...

[BlackMesa]

Just out of curiosity, if the P2P ban bill were to pass just how exactly would anyone obtain a clone or a seed to grow in the first place? This seems like this would completely force you to break the law with out any way around it. Could this be the true intent of this law? Someone please explain how you could legally get around this if it were to pass?

 

Some of these bills are a definite giant wrecking ball to the current law.

[Dr. Bob]

Just out of curiosity, if the P2P ban bill were to pass just how exactly would anyone obtain a clone or a seed to grow in the first place? This seems like this would completely force you to break the law with out any way around it. Could this be the true intent of this law? Someone please explain how you could legally get around this if it were to pass?

 

Some of these bills are a definite giant wrecking ball to the current law.

 

I would assume you would get clones from your caregiver if you were interested in being a caregiver for other patients. Otherwise, you may have to start as a patient of someone else before you can grow yourself. Not what we want, but if you want to be strictly legal you may have to start that way.

 

Again, this isn't about our desire not to have these bills passed, that is well noted, it is about how we can do most if not all of what we want to do and stay within the framework of those bills.

 

In this case, if you want to grow your own, you start off as another persons patient, file a change of caregivers from them to you and have them transfer you 'your' plants when the 21 days is up. Tight, clearly legal, and seems safe. Yes an extra step but so is putting on your seatbelt when you drive. Some things we just will have to do.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

As for the Senate and House bills on the doctor/patient relationship, I've addressed those elsewhere.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Two other bills need to be addressed. One from the Senate (Kahn) and one from the House(Walsh). They concern the Dr/Pt relationship.

 

The House Bill is very restrictive. Key features are that only primary care doctors, those responsible for full management of all the patient's medical issues, may write certifications. Telemedicine is not allowed for certification. There are criminal penalties for doctors that don't follow good medical practice.

 

The Senate Bill calls for good medical standards and notification of the primary care doctor (who may then cut off pain medication or discharge the patient from the practice.

 

Both are designed to get rid of so called signature mills that don't follow good medical practices- like those that don't require records or take over the patient to generate medical records, clinics where a doctor is not interacting with the patient at the time of certifications, and the 'assembly line' type certification clinics run by those interested in a quick buck.

 

But in their effort to get rid of the bad apples, they are forgetting some mandates they have from their bosses, the people. The people voted for this initiative with the hopes that qualified patients would have access to certification. These bills do nothing to promote that goal, they restrict it. They put the burden of certifications back to primary care- a group of physicians that refuse to participate in the process, are told by their employers they cannot participate, and regularly punish their patients that do by cutting them off their meds and discharging them from the practice.

 

What is needed is to make certification an 'on demand' issue. If a qualified patient requests certification, it should be issues and made part of their regular treatment program. That gets rid of the mills, the legitimate certification only clinics too, puts it back into primary care and follows the mandate of the voters.

 

Dr. Bob

[+Silverblue]

ALL THIS SOCIETY KNOWS HOW TO DO IS PUNISH. Whenever a legislator or some authority type starts yapping about "protection" they really mean the opposite. When they say, "It's for your own good," as well as "we're protecting you," they REALLY mean, it's for THEIR own good, they're protecting THEMSELVES. GRRRR I'm TOTALLY disgusted, had ENOUGH, it's time to make some changes.

 

Sb

[Hayduke]

Dr Bob there is a lot of truth in what you often suggest and propose. I have no question of your idea's all being well thought out and well intentioned. But I would suggest that your interpretation of law in the following paragraph might be suspect. Having spoken personally to numerous of the prosecutors in Michigan, whenever they were posed with hypotheticals like this they would roll their eyes and beg off the question as being one that a local police force, or the county officers, or the MSP would likely decide at the point of first contact.

 

Dr Bob writes: "If each of the 5 patients was in turn a non-growing caregiver for 5 additional patients, instead of being able to store 2.5 oz at any time just for themselves, they would be able to store 15 oz for themselves and their 5 patients, capacity which could be transferred down from the main grower. Thus the storage capacity of the 'tree' is 15 for the grower, 75 for the 5 patient/caregivers, plus over 60 for the 25 patients under the 5 cg/pts in the second tier. Medication would be transferred from the grower to each patient in 2.5 oz increments, then be split to that patient/cg's 5 patients in 1/2 oz increments until the entire crop is absorbed. "

Sounds a lot like a pyramid scheme to me. Can you give me some legal help on how this is thought to be anywhere close to what is considered "legal" today? I would suggest anyone thinking about following this path, first seek sound legal advise on the matter. There are some very good attorneys who can probably speak to this topic. I hope they add clarity to the topic. There are some great attorneys who would no doubt give an opinion if consulted formally as well.

[Votetocracy]

Hey everyone-

 

If you'd like to do more than write a letter to Congress perhaps you would consider voting on the actual bills for yourself.

 

HR.1983 States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act

 

If there are other bills you know of (federal) let me know and I'll get the info for you.

 

Thanks,

Votetocray

[AlternativeSolutionsPlus]

Hey everyone-

 

If you'd like to do more than write a letter to Congress perhaps you would consider voting on the actual bills for yourself.

 

HR.1983 States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act

 

If there are other bills you know of (federal) let me know and I'll get the info for you.

 

Thanks,

Votetocray

 

I will and thank you.

[Dr. Bob]

Dr Bob there is a lot of truth in what you often suggest and propose. I have no question of your idea's all being well thought out and well intentioned. But I would suggest that your interpretation of law in the following paragraph might be suspect. Having spoken personally to numerous of the prosecutors in Michigan, whenever they were posed with hypotheticals like this they would roll their eyes and beg off the question as being one that a local police force, or the county officers, or the MSP would likely decide at the point of first contact.

 

Dr Bob writes: "If each of the 5 patients was in turn a non-growing caregiver for 5 additional patients, instead of being able to store 2.5 oz at any time just for themselves, they would be able to store 15 oz for themselves and their 5 patients, capacity which could be transferred down from the main grower. Thus the storage capacity of the 'tree' is 15 for the grower, 75 for the 5 patient/caregivers, plus over 60 for the 25 patients under the 5 cg/pts in the second tier. Medication would be transferred from the grower to each patient in 2.5 oz increments, then be split to that patient/cg's 5 patients in 1/2 oz increments until the entire crop is absorbed. "

Sounds a lot like a pyramid scheme to me. Can you give me some legal help on how this is thought to be anywhere close to what is considered "legal" today? I would suggest anyone thinking about following this path, first seek sound legal advise on the matter. There are some very good attorneys who can probably speak to this topic. I hope they add clarity to the topic. There are some great attorneys who would no doubt give an opinion if consulted formally as well.

 

You are quite correct in that it is a pyramid or a co-op. The key features is that all transfers are direct from caregiver to registered patient. The key to that is that ALL sides of the issue agree that a transfer from caregiver to their designated, registry associated, patient is clearly legal. That is not to say that other means of transfer are not, but this one clearly is and all sides agree to that. It is a safe harbor. A care giver is responsible for providing their patients medication. Medication in their possession, be it grown by them or not, can be transferred to their patient. While I do recommend some legal assistance on this, I believe this to be a true statement. Check with your own lawyer.

 

Another key to this is that the needs of each patient can be documented and calculated, and enough plants grown by the grower to accommodate those needs, which again justifies the number of plants and their production by the grower. If your prosecutor is rolling his eyes (which is easy to do) ask him why he is objecting to a direct caregiver to designated patient transfer (which is hard). If he has a specific objection, backed by a provision in the law, ask him to outline it and how he would like to see it done. Then do it that way.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Not offering an opinion or pushing it off to local police to decide is NOT a response to the question. It is a cop out designed to intimidate. I would indeed like to see an attorney offer a specific objection to the basic outline. Better yet, ask the prosecutor to make a stand or issue an opinion.

[+Silverblue]

I see hayduke's point, so I'd like to see a prosecutor weigh in on this. There is a lawyer on our site who was a prosecutor at one time, who's opinion might prove very valuable. His name here is HibbyHibby. He understands the law from both sides.

 

No offense, Dr. Bob.

 

Sb

[Dr. Bob]

I see hayduke's point, so I'd like to see a prosecutor weigh in on this. There is a lawyer on our site who was a prosecutor at one time, who's opinion might prove very valuable. His name here is HibbyHibby. He understands the law from both sides.

 

No offense, Dr. Bob.

 

Sb

 

None taken SB, The purpose of the discussion is to come up with a game plan if any of the bills pass so we can still get meds to patients. This is a suggestion, I don't see an obvious flaw, but an attorney weighing in would be good. I don't purport to have all the answers, but I try and think things through and come up with ideas rather than just complain. A complaint without a suggestion to improve the process is merely whining.

 

Dr. Bob

[Hayduke]

well my suggestion would be keep it on the non personal front, Dr. Bob. Everyone should have a right to express themselves without back handed comments.

 

At a time when I sit several times a week with law makers, I can tell you first hand this type of plan you suggest does not get any warm snugglies from our elected officials. This type of transfer is exactly the type of thing that gets their pens a-flowin'...

 

Read the bills with a view towards figuring out what the authors intend (whether one agree's with them or not.... personally the bills are all bad to this poster). They do not wish for a caregiver to have any chain, co-op, pyramid or the like, and in fact wish to stop those avenues of dispensing completely. So at least advise people that your plan is a "liberal" interpretation that you have in how you view the MMMA.

 

It appears there may well be a MPP sponsored dispensary bill introduced in the near term future. Do you think that will set off a firestorm in Lansing?

 

One's perspective is always tempered when they are a patient or caregiver. Gotta have some skin in the game to make any pronouncements of plans. Otherwise it is all just posturing, eh?

[Restorium2]

Yeah. I asked an attorney a while back about this pyramid scheme and he said it was a big a$$ distribution network and might attract a RICO case. Then he chuckled.... and said, "Why do you think they limited the caregiver to 5 patients in the first place?" "Not so you can think of ways around it".

[Dr. Bob]

well my suggestion would be keep it on the non personal front, Dr. Bob. Everyone should have a right to express themselves without back handed comments.

 

At a time when I sit several times a week with law makers, I can tell you first hand this type of plan you suggest does not get any warm snugglies from our elected officials. This type of transfer is exactly the type of thing that gets their pens a-flowin'...

 

Read the bills with a view towards figuring out what the authors intend (whether one agree's with them or not.... personally the bills are all bad to this poster). They do not wish for a caregiver to have any chain, co-op, pyramid or the like, and in fact wish to stop those avenues of dispensing completely. So at least advise people that your plan is a "liberal" interpretation that you have in how you view the MMMA.

 

It appears there may well be a MPP sponsored dispensary bill introduced in the near term future. Do you think that will set off a firestorm in Lansing?

 

One's perspective is always tempered when they are a patient or caregiver. Gotta have some skin in the game to make any pronouncements of plans. Otherwise it is all just posturing, eh?

 

I am trying to figure out how this could be interpreted as backhanded or anything else. Nor is it in any way personal against you or anyone else. It is a suggestion and perhaps a way to keep things completely within the caregiver/designated patient system. If you don't think it is workable, let me know why beyond it would upset those that have a vested interest in stopping all transfer. The point made is that this would allow transfer within the registry system, no p2p or dispensaries, in the event the later are no longer available.

 

Please explain specifically why you feel it is a bad idea and on what basis. That is not an 'attack' on me, it is a discussion and I am interested in hearing it. If I am wrong in my thought that this stays within the caregiver/designated patient system, tell me why. The first part is pretty clear, a caregiver can transfer to his five patients. The second part, those patients being caregivers themselves to others and able to transfer medication in their possession is the tricky part. I don't see how that can be in violation. I am not aware of any requirement that a caregiver physically grow medication, only that they provide it to their designated patients.

 

I am interested on your thoughts beyond just saying it will upset those that mean us harm because we are supplying patients, within their strict rules, and not stopped by their efforts.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

well my suggestion would be keep it on the non personal front, Dr. Bob. Everyone should have a right to express themselves without back handed comments.

 

At a time when I sit several times a week with law makers, I can tell you first hand this type of plan you suggest does not get any warm snugglies from our elected officials. This type of transfer is exactly the type of thing that gets their pens a-flowin'...

 

Read the bills with a view towards figuring out what the authors intend (whether one agree's with them or not.... personally the bills are all bad to this poster). They do not wish for a caregiver to have any chain, co-op, pyramid or the like, and in fact wish to stop those avenues of dispensing completely. So at least advise people that your plan is a "liberal" interpretation that you have in how you view the MMMA.

 

It appears there may well be a MPP sponsored dispensary bill introduced in the near term future. Do you think that will set off a firestorm in Lansing?

 

One's perspective is always tempered when they are a patient or caregiver. Gotta have some skin in the game to make any pronouncements of plans. Otherwise it is all just posturing, eh?

 

I am trying to figure out how this could be interpreted as backhanded or anything else. Nor is it in any way personal against you or anyone else. It is a suggestion and perhaps a way to keep things completely within the caregiver/designated patient system. If you don't think it is workable, let me know why beyond it would upset those that have a vested interest in stopping all transfer. The point made is that this would allow transfer within the registry system, no p2p or dispensaries, in the event the later are no longer available.

 

Please explain specifically why you feel it is a bad idea and on what basis. That is not an 'attack' on me, it is a discussion and I am interested in hearing it. If I am wrong in my thought that this stays within the caregiver/designated patient system, tell me why. The first part is pretty clear, a caregiver can transfer to his five patients. The second part, those patients being caregivers themselves to others and able to transfer medication in their possession is the tricky part. I don't see how that can be in violation. I am not aware of any requirement that a caregiver physically grow medication, only that they provide it to their designated patients.

 

I am interested on your thoughts beyond just saying it will upset those that mean us harm because we are supplying patients, within their strict rules, and not stopped by their efforts.

 

Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

I am trying to figure out how this could be interpreted as backhanded or anything else. Nor is it in any way personal against you or anyone else. It is a suggestion and perhaps a way to keep things completely within the caregiver/designated patient system. If you don't think it is workable, let me know why beyond it would upset those that have a vested interest in stopping all transfer. The point made is that this would allow transfer within the registry system, no p2p or dispensaries, in the event the later are no longer available.

 

Please explain specifically why you feel it is a bad idea and on what basis. That is not an 'attack' on me, it is a discussion and I am interested in hearing it. If I am wrong in my thought that this stays within the caregiver/designated patient system, tell me why. The first part is pretty clear, a caregiver can transfer to his five patients. The second part, those patients being caregivers themselves to others and able to transfer medication in their possession is the tricky part. I don't see how that can be in violation. I am not aware of any requirement that a caregiver physically grow medication, only that they provide it to their designated patients.

 

I am interested on your thoughts beyond just saying it will upset those that mean us harm because we are supplying patients, within their strict rules, and not stopped by their efforts.

 

Dr. Bob

The answer starts with a question;

Why do you think that a caregiver is limited to having 5 patients?

[Dr. Bob]

The answer starts with a question;

Why do you think that a caregiver is limited to having 5 patients?

 

Now that is a good question. Another good question is do 5 patients need the full output of 72 plants? Let's for the moment give the 'a patient can possess as much as they need' a break and assume the safe 2.5 oz per patient as a max.

 

The point being made by your question is that each grower should plant enough to supply 5 patients, with reasonable reserves, and only 5 patients.

 

The sticking point to my proposal (and it is just an idea, nothing more, to assure supply if p2p and dispensaries go down the tube), is two fold.

 

Does a caregiver have to physically grow the medication for their patients, or can they just have a supply on hand to transfer to them?

Is a grower required to only supply enough medication to their patient to meet that patient's personal needs?

 

If the caregiver must physically grow, this idea is shot.

If the grower can only grow enough to meet the needs of their five individual patients, this idea is shot.

 

If a grower can transfer a legal amount of medication to their patient, and that patient can then put on a caregiver hat and transfer that same medication to THEIR patients, then it is a viable alternative.

 

I saw last night that Rev Wayne had run into grief over this very issue, I will talk with him and see how that turned out and if so what was the finding of the courts. If anyone has insight on this from the standpoint of court cases, I would be interested in hearing it, because I don't want to put out dangerous ideas. I proposed it because I felt it was entirely within the caregiver/designated patient system, and offered some safety. If I am wrong, I am wrong. Until we find out I would recommend we keep it on the back burner.

 

Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

Now that is a good question. Another good question is do 5 patients need the full output of 72 plants?

 

The point being made by your question is that each grower should plant enough to supply 5 patients, with reasonable reserves, and only 5 patients.

 

The sticking point to my proposal (and it is just an idea, nothing more, to assure supply if p2p and dispensaries go down the tube), is two fold.

 

Does a caregiver have to physically grow the medication for their patients, or can they just have a supply on hand to transfer to them?

Is a grower required to only supply enough medication to their patient to meet that patient's personal needs?

 

If the caregiver must physically grow, this idea is shot.

If the grower can only grow enough to meet the needs of their five individual patients, this idea is shot.

 

If a grower can transfer a legal amount of medication to their patient, and that patient can then put on a caregiver hat and transfer that same medication to THEIR patients, then it is a viable alternative.

 

I saw last night that Rev Wayne had run into grief over this very issue, I will talk with him and see how that turned out and if so what was the finding of the courts. If anyone has insight on this from the standpoint of court cases, I would be interested in hearing it, because I don't want to put out dangerous ideas. I proposed it because I felt it was entirely within the caregiver/designated patient system, and offered some safety. If I am wrong, I am wrong. Until we find out I would recommend we keep it on the back burner.

 

Dr. Bob

Intent of the law....

Why do you think that a caregiver was limited to 5 patients, and not 50, or unlimited like your proposed idea?

[Dr. Bob]

Intent of the law....

Why do you think that a caregiver was limited to 5 patients, and not 50, or unlimited like your proposed idea?

 

If you argue the intent of the law, it is for patients to have access to medication specifically and certification indirectly.

 

The grower, within his legal limit, is transferring medication to 5 patients. The second tier consists of people with medication transferring to their 5 patients. Other benefits include the legal storage of reserve medication by the caregivers for their patients and the ability to expand production if the need is there.

 

I see your point about the limit of 5 patients, but wonder if you are aware of any cases that have been adjudicated. I would like to read the opinion of the court on the matter as well. You and Hay raise very valid objections and provide some good thinking and research points. I'll look into it some more and see if I can find anything.

 

Dr. Bob

[SparklyBuds]

HB 4834

 

As noted above, this bill requires the submission of 2 photographs with the registry application. But actually reading the bill shows this interpretation to be rather superficial. Actually reading the bill shows the real danger it contains. Here it is...

 

(B) STATE OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR OFFICIALS, BUT

23 ONLY AS TO INQUIRIES MADE IN THE COURSE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES

24 AND AS TO INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH AN INDIVIDUAL FOR WHOM THE

25 OFFICERS OR OFFICIAL PROVIDES EITHER A NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH OR A

26 REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.

 

This section has to do with releasing registry information. Currently as those of us following these matters know, the police have 24 hour a day verification of card status when they put the registration number into the LIENS system in their squad cars. There isn't anything wrong with this. The changes this bill suggest is to remove the requirement that the police have your registry number (ie you have presented your card in response to being found in possession of MMJ). The police currently cannot get your information without that registry number.

 

This bill will allow them to do 'name inquiries'. No longer will they have to have probable cause to check your card status (as they must have now). They can simply go to their desk tops and check if 'Joe Plumber' has a card. Why would they do such a thing? Perhaps Joe has a child support warrant, or parking tickets and they are looking for an added bonus in the form of forfeiture to 'teach him a lesson' and get some cash for the policeman's ball. Maybe the might luck out and find an extra plant. Given the choice of two individuals, one with a card and another without, who do you think they will go after to get the biggest bang for their buck so to say?

 

Dr. Bob

 

.

Funny how, before any of the bills regarding MM specifically, first they introduced this one regarding Forfeiture.....back in March.

http://michiganmedic...__1#entry274083

 

The same bill, HB 4349, as passed by the House June 30 2011

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/House/htm/2011-HEBH-4349.htm

 

I can't say I understand it, but still, it sure seems kind of ominous ... kind of indicative of the whole reason they are trying so hard to pass so many restrictions = more people to bust = more For the State. Too bad the millions they made off all of us getting cards wasn't enough.

[Dr. Bob]

.

Funny how, before any of the bills regarding MM specifically, first they introduced this one regarding Forfeiture.....back in March.

http://michiganmedic...__1#entry274083

 

The same bill, HB 4349, as passed by the House June 30 2011

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/House/htm/2011-HEBH-4349.htm

 

I can't say I understand it, but still, it sure seems kind of ominous ... kind of indicative of the whole reason they are trying so hard to pass so many restrictions = more people to bust = more For the State. Too bad the millions they made off all of us getting cards wasn't enough.

 

I agree. It was bad enough having folks send out postcards with you name, address and status as a MMJ patient, now if this passes LEO can find out by using the basic information on your facebook page.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

We are all clearly opposed to these bills. But prudent planning requires that in addition to an organized response to defeat their passage, we must be prepared with contingencies if any or all pass. While I certainly don't want to suggest that a negative outcome is probable, what are we going to do if one occurs to protect our rights, protect the movement/Act, and meet the muster of the new laws?

 

Example...

 

HB 4850 actually does three things beyond simply banning the transfer of medication between patients that are not registered formally as caregiver and designated patient.

 

In addition, IF a transfer does occur between two individuals that possess MMMR cards those cards will be REVOKED for both the transferring patient and the receiving patient, and once the card is revoked as a result of the transfer, both will be treated as unregistered users and subject to prosecution without the defense of the MMMA.

 

Clearly, the intent of the bill is to revoke and prosecute any patient that steps out of the strict caregiver to designated patient mold. The result is the end of farmers markets, dispensaries and anything that does not confine itself to the caregiver/designated patient system.

 

What are we to do to comply if this passes?

 

Clearly the entire framework of our action plan must be centered on the caregiver/designated patient framework. Dispensaries and other organizations should start work now on developing networks of patients organized around growers. My thoughts are as follows but subject to legal and community review.

 

One grower with 5 patients can grow 72 plants. Even with good crop planning, rotation, etc, this number is very capable of exceeding the needs of those 5 patients, either requiring extensive processing into more refined products such as oils/medibles/etc, destruction of excess or reduction in the number of plants grown. Storage capacity is limited to 15 oz for the grow and 12.5 oz for all 5 patients. No single harvest should exceed 30 oz of usable meds.

 

If each of the 5 patients was in turn a non-growing caregiver for 5 additional patients, instead of being able to store 2.5 oz at any time just for themselves, they would be able to store 15 oz for themselves and their 5 patients, capacity which could be transferred down from the main grower. Thus the storage capacity of the 'tree' is 15 for the grower, 75 for the 5 patient/caregivers, plus over 60 for the 25 patients under the 5 cg/pts in the second tier. Medication would be transferred from the grower to each patient in 2.5 oz increments, then be split to that patient/cg's 5 patients in 1/2 oz increments until the entire crop is absorbed.

 

The ability of the grower to combine with 4 other growers under an 'uber caregiver' would allow them to have access to backup crop in the event of a failure, as well as more specialty strains. The key to this system is to have strict caregiver to designated patient transfers, storage capacity, backup and the ability to expand production to match consumption. Poke a hole in that Bill.

 

While this is not the only approach we can take in the event we get a bad outcome with this bill, it is designed to start a thought process and a discussion. It is easy to condemn a possibility, it is hard to plan for one. We need to start and consider the possibility so we are prepared.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Remember this????

 

Checked with legal...this is clearly legal.